gb13
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,374
Ron needs to be more prepared and more confrontational in debates. He should be as gloves-off in person, as his Trust" ad is on T.V.
It's obvious that his ideas are righteous, immortal, and near perfect. He, being a man, has faults; as we all do. Unfortunately, even some of Ron's virtues, when transported to the world of politics, become faults. For instance, the fact that he is a "kindly man". Obviously, this is a virtue. However, to the average voter, in this type of debate format, Ron's kindly nature runs the risk of coming off as weakness; shying away from a fight. This, coupled with stumbling through questions for which he should have rehearsed responses, is a bad mixture. He needs to be viewed as the "kindly man", who will turn into a doberman pinscher when defending his record, and the rights of the American people.
He should have knocked Perry out of the park. He clearly knew that "dear frank" question was coming. He was running an attack ad against perry during the debate, for crying out loud! He should have had the Benton letter's talking-points memorized, and had a 1-2 punch lined up with a well thought out critique of Perry's indefensible record, a la the "trust" ad. This was an early chance to gain serious ground and credibility as the only conservative on the stage, but he didn't seem to know how to field the bullshit questions he was given and spin them into an opportunity to address his (underdeveloped) talking points.
The other people in this race are literally taking Ron Paul's ideas, and boiling them down to rehearsed talking-points, and then copping them off as their own. The worst part: those Ron Paul talking points are resonating with the american people! He needs to CONSTANTLY hammer on the fact that he has been saying this stuff for 30 YEARS. He needs to call the others out on only recently parroting his ideas now that they have become popular. He needs to question their judgement. He needs to ask them why only now, in the midst of a crisis, are they beginning to realize what was plain-as-day to him 30 years ago. He also needs to put the moderators in their place when they slight him.
Along with that, he needs rehearsed responses to any ridiculous attacks on his record, and should have a better strategy, going forward, for addressing ALL bullshit debate questions chucked his way (and we all know there will be many, many more to come).
It could be as simple as this:
Moderator: "what do you think about (some unimportant issue, or some other veiled attempt to deny Ron the opportunity to address an important question every other candidate got an opportunity to talk about)?"
Ron Paul: "You know, that's an important issue, but it ties into an even more important issue, which is the underlying problem that everyone else on this stage seems to only recently have been able to understand": (then recite a prepared response about monetary policy, the economy, job creation, the welfare state, regulation & bureaucracy, individual liberty, or whatever talking-point is most relevant) Conclude with, "so until we get that underlying problem in order, making surface-deep adjustments to skirt the real issue will clearly be ineffective. It's a shame my colleagues on the debate stage weren't listening (for the past 30 years, decade, 5 years) that I have been addressing this problem and coming up with solutions to it on the house floor, on the public record."
Guys, I've supported Ron Paul since 2006 when I was in college and first found out who he was. Actively supporting him in '08 was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I really want to see him win this thing. If HE wants to win, he must learn how turn their game around on them. I know he can do it, but he and his campaign really need to buckle-down.
It's obvious that his ideas are righteous, immortal, and near perfect. He, being a man, has faults; as we all do. Unfortunately, even some of Ron's virtues, when transported to the world of politics, become faults. For instance, the fact that he is a "kindly man". Obviously, this is a virtue. However, to the average voter, in this type of debate format, Ron's kindly nature runs the risk of coming off as weakness; shying away from a fight. This, coupled with stumbling through questions for which he should have rehearsed responses, is a bad mixture. He needs to be viewed as the "kindly man", who will turn into a doberman pinscher when defending his record, and the rights of the American people.
He should have knocked Perry out of the park. He clearly knew that "dear frank" question was coming. He was running an attack ad against perry during the debate, for crying out loud! He should have had the Benton letter's talking-points memorized, and had a 1-2 punch lined up with a well thought out critique of Perry's indefensible record, a la the "trust" ad. This was an early chance to gain serious ground and credibility as the only conservative on the stage, but he didn't seem to know how to field the bullshit questions he was given and spin them into an opportunity to address his (underdeveloped) talking points.
The other people in this race are literally taking Ron Paul's ideas, and boiling them down to rehearsed talking-points, and then copping them off as their own. The worst part: those Ron Paul talking points are resonating with the american people! He needs to CONSTANTLY hammer on the fact that he has been saying this stuff for 30 YEARS. He needs to call the others out on only recently parroting his ideas now that they have become popular. He needs to question their judgement. He needs to ask them why only now, in the midst of a crisis, are they beginning to realize what was plain-as-day to him 30 years ago. He also needs to put the moderators in their place when they slight him.
Along with that, he needs rehearsed responses to any ridiculous attacks on his record, and should have a better strategy, going forward, for addressing ALL bullshit debate questions chucked his way (and we all know there will be many, many more to come).
It could be as simple as this:
Moderator: "what do you think about (some unimportant issue, or some other veiled attempt to deny Ron the opportunity to address an important question every other candidate got an opportunity to talk about)?"
Ron Paul: "You know, that's an important issue, but it ties into an even more important issue, which is the underlying problem that everyone else on this stage seems to only recently have been able to understand": (then recite a prepared response about monetary policy, the economy, job creation, the welfare state, regulation & bureaucracy, individual liberty, or whatever talking-point is most relevant) Conclude with, "so until we get that underlying problem in order, making surface-deep adjustments to skirt the real issue will clearly be ineffective. It's a shame my colleagues on the debate stage weren't listening (for the past 30 years, decade, 5 years) that I have been addressing this problem and coming up with solutions to it on the house floor, on the public record."
Guys, I've supported Ron Paul since 2006 when I was in college and first found out who he was. Actively supporting him in '08 was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I really want to see him win this thing. If HE wants to win, he must learn how turn their game around on them. I know he can do it, but he and his campaign really need to buckle-down.
